Sola Scriptura

[ohio jones]

Early Anabaptists challenged their adversaries to "prove me with scripture that what I believe is wrong." But this did not mean that they followed the Bible. They followed Christ. When we start following the Bible, we get into trouble due to such things as solo scriptura as was mentioned.

That would be Solus Christus, or Christocentrism.

As far as the Reformers and their solas are concerned, no man can serve five masters.

[Valerie]

Early Anabaptists challenged their adversaries to "prove me with scripture that what I believe is wrong." But this did not mean that they followed the Bible. They followed Christ. When we start following the Bible, we get into trouble due to such things as solo scriptura as was mentioned.

That would be Solus Christus, or Christocentrism.

As far as the Reformers and their solas are concerned, no man can serve five masters.

Can you elaborate on this please?
It seems if i understand Chris, the Early Anabaptists, were they Sola Sculptura, and so dismissing any and all previous traditions in the.Church that could not be found in Scripture itself?

[Ken]

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura is that there are numerous verses in the Bible that point to Prima Scriptura. That we are to be guided not just by the text of the Bible, but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: For example:

Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit

[ohio jones]

It seems if i understand Chris, the Early Anabaptists, were they Sola Sculptura, and so dismissing any and all previous traditions in the.Church that could not be found in Scripture itself?

Sculpture alone? No, they tended toward iconoclasm.

For the first time, the scriptures were available in sufficient quantities and in the common languages so that anyone could read them. And as they read, they saw for themselves how far tradition had departed from truth. So they resolved simply to follow what scripture taught. But the focus was not on scripture itself; scripture was simply the authoritative basis for knowing the truth about Christ and about His church.

The Gospel, the word of God, preached unmingled, in the power of the spirit, is the only right, true seed from which are born the truly believing and obedient children of God. If the church of Christ brings forth children from the doctrine of man, and not from God's word, she is not faithful unto Christ, and her children are not of his seed.

Therefore may nothing else be preached in Christ's kingdom and house, the church, except her King and husband's own commands and words, according to which she and all her servants must conform.

[temporal1]

It seems if i understand Chris, the Early Anabaptists, were they Sola Sculptura, and so dismissing any and all previous traditions in the.Church that could not be found in Scripture itself?

Sculpture alone? No, they tended toward iconoclasm. .. he loves to tease you, Valerie.

For the first time, the scriptures were available in sufficient quantities and in the common languages so that anyone could read them. And as they read, they saw for themselves how far tradition (the Catholic Church) had departed from truth. So they resolved simply to follow what scripture taught.

But the focus was not on scripture itself; scripture was simply the authoritative basis for knowing the truth about Christ and about His church.

The Gospel, the word of God, preached unmingled, in the power of the spirit, is the only right, true seed from which are born the truly believing and obedient children of God. If the church of Christ brings forth children from the doctrine of man, and not from God's word, she is not faithful unto Christ, and her children are not of his seed.

Therefore may nothing else be preached in Christ's kingdom and house, the church, except her King and husband's own commands and words, according to which she and all her servants must conform.

(i think) oj’s contextual point is key.
i would add, in context of the times, “Sola Scriptura” was a BOLD, even revolutionary, “fly-in-the-face” of the Catholic Church.
i have my doubts it was meant the way it’s read today .. these are not life-threatening words as they originally were.

to alter one of oj’s words, i don’t think scriptures were “simply” anything to those who were, for the first time in history, allowed the privilege of reading them first-person, of the idea of having books available, at all. it must have seemed miraculous and glorious. (with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, scriptures continue to be miraculous and glorious.) it’s sad when this experience is lacking.
pray for the Holy Spirit.

in those times, there were not the (hundreds) of translations/transliterations that exist today.

- - - - - - -

when i arrived on MD, i’m not sure i’d heard of Sola Scriptura, if i did, i hadn’t thought about it.
i was a happy Lutheran, a happy believer, and knew nothing of Anabaptists, including origins. i was shocked to learn.
willing to learn.

questions of Sola Scriptura were discussed; as i’ve read, and tried to imagine how things unfolded in context of the day,
i began to imagine SS was pretty much a serious affront to the Catholic Church, and probably not intended to be the stand-alone-and-above statement questioned today.

Menno’s quote above adds context to help those following.

i imagine the words, “Sola Scriptura” must have been unnerving in the day.
i doubt they were intended to be “the whole story,” altho i can see how that result could have unfolded.

this was heady stuff in those days. life-threatening.

also, i think it’s important to acknowledge, these men were devout Catholics. they did not want to harm their church.
they wanted to recognize and live Truth, they wanted to correct errors and wrongs.

these were not the first men to question. they were the first with access to the printing press.

in our times, we understand questioning+correcting to be “normal democratic process.” the Catholic Church wasn’t and isn’t a normal democratic process. (most) churches aren’t. however, in the 1500’s, violence resulted. the men+women daring to question knew the gravity. they believed the eternal was of utmost importance.

it’s always interesting to try to understand in context. it may be impossible to really get it.
but interesting to try.

the Menno quote does a nice job of painting the picture.

[Valerie]

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura is that there are numerous verses in the Bible that point to Prima Scriptura. That we are to be guided not just by the text of the Bible, but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: For example:

Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit

I had to look up "Prima Scriptura"- is this your understanding?

People also ask
Who believes in prima scriptura?
Prima sciptura is upheld by the Anglican, Methodist and Pentecostal traditions of Christianity, which suggest that Scripture is the primary source for Christian doctrine, but that "tradition, experience, and reason" can nurture the Christian religion as long as they are in harmony with the Bible.

I'm not sure that's the accurate meaning of prima scriptura. I definitely know coming from the Pentecostal charismatic churches for decades that the holy Spirit was very much relied on in addition to the scriptures meaning it wasn't just scripture, but He has more to say as long as it is, as the above says, is in harmony with Scripture.

[Valerie]

It seems if i understand Chris, the Early Anabaptists, were they Sola Sculptura, and so dismissing any and all previous traditions in the.Church that could not be found in Scripture itself?

Sculpture alone? No, they tended toward iconoclasm.

For the first time, the scriptures were available in sufficient quantities and in the common languages so that anyone could read them. And as they read, they saw for themselves how far tradition had departed from truth. So they resolved simply to follow what scripture taught. But the focus was not on scripture itself; scripture was simply the authoritative basis for knowing the truth about Christ and about His church.

The Gospel, the word of God, preached unmingled, in the power of the spirit, is the only right, true seed from which are born the truly believing and obedient children of God. If the church of Christ brings forth children from the doctrine of man, and not from God's word, she is not faithful unto Christ, and her children are not of his seed.

Therefore may nothing else be preached in Christ's kingdom and house, the church, except her King and husband's own commands and words, according to which she and all her servants must conform.

I read the history book of that entire era. Written by a Mennonite. Iconoclasm was an issue which was resolved in the church and icons were restored. I used to see ot the way my previous denomination would have, as well as the Anabaptist would, I had to spend a lot of time really trying to understand their purpose and I completely changed my opposition to them because we really took a lot of time trying to understand the Orthodox teachings rather than dismiss them. I need too many people I highly respected that had turned Orthodox and this would have included an Amish bishop, Mennonites, Evangelicals, Pentecostals/Charismatics Baptist, Catholics, a former Methodist pastor who left decades ago in search of the original & true Church. I've known some personally & also read the testimony of so many. For them to turn to Eastern Orthodox they had to completely dismiss the concept of Sola scriptura. So for a Mennonite to turn that way they would have had to do the same. There was no Reformation in the East- so it wasn't just a matter of everyone having access to written scripture. I think it was what was happening in the Catholic Church such as selling indulgences that really triggered the "Solas"

500 years later, would we then see that this was the answer? Did it bring unity to the church? Can a world step back and look at what's happened since then and say that the church is One?
Wisdom is known by the fruit of it's children- we are a pretty divided sected church primarily due to an attempt at Sola Scriptura?

[Valerie]

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with Sola Scriptura is that there are numerous verses in the Bible that point to Prima Scriptura. That we are to be guided not just by the text of the Bible, but by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: For example:

Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

1 Corinthians 12:7-11 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit

I'm thinking more about your comment, it is true that Christ said he would build his church. The church was before the canonized scripture. It was reading the Old testament but it was being built by the Holy Spirit we are quick to assume that anything not written down shouldn't have been done. And yet the church for 2,000 years has believed that the holy spirit is the one who was guiding the church to do as it was and it was being built the way the holy Spirit was guiding- whether we agree with that or not it would have been a pretty weak statement for Christ to say he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail for it to immediately fall away. The following away happens before Christ's second Advent so we have it backwards when we think that it was this little remnant of a church when actually the apostles were going worldwide and churches were built worldwide and now we see the reverses happening the falling away.

Traditions also came from the Jewish influence to begin with, such as women covering their head- the church has a history of all that was taking place at that time.

But to say it was supposed to be Sola Scriptua seems unBiblical when you consider the purpose of the holy Spirit and even the scripture itself:

2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

[temporal1]

Valerie:
.. I think it was what was happening in the Catholic Church such as selling indulgences that really triggered the "Solas" ..

i think it was aimed directly at the Catholic Church, for indulgences and other non-scriptural practices.
and, it was known this was huge. it was demanding accountability.

Valerie:

2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle

yes. in those times, the spoken word (and icons) had been what believers had for hundreds of years.
having scriptures in common language was revolutionary. having a literate population was revolutionary.

the Spirit transcends.

[Neto]

Early Anabaptists challenged their adversaries to "prove me with scripture that what I believe is wrong." But this did not mean that they followed the Bible. They followed Christ. When we start following the Bible, we get into trouble due to such things as solo scriptura as was mentioned.

I'm curious if any of them used the authority in the church / church tradition.

I have read through The Martyr's Mirror, and I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that if they ever did make an appeal to church authority or tradition, it is not reported in that volume.

[re: the Latin term Sola Srriptura: I shy away from catch phrases. There is too much "baggage" in these terms. Putting it in what is a foreign language to all of us makes it even more obscure. (Why do we do that?) I have had a few conversations with people where even terms like "Christian", "Born Again", "Believer", etc. mean something different than how perhaps most people would understand it. Sure, it's "literarily economic" (An economic use of words) to wrap a lot of meaning into one small phrase, but it often doesn't communicate well.

There is a fairly short sentence that I think adequately describes what is the traditional position of at least the Dutch "baptism minded": "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and practice." In the words of the people whose testimonies are reported in Martyr's Mirror: "Show me in the Scriptures that I am wrong, and I will change my belief."

But I should go look to see how Martin Luther used the term.]